On Hell and Forgiveness

[robvalue]

This thread has drifted wildly from the OP.

"Hell" is entirelly imaginary place and now we are arguing number theory for reasons unexplained.

None of the godly protagonists can remotely point to any hell, so they are reduced to the distraction of "what does 4 mean".

Watching the flailing is sheer comedy.

Indeed. They’re trying to show that “non physical” things can exist. It instantly fails on many levels, not least of which being that physical means existent. It’s an attempt to hide god in a semantic gap, which then requires several layers of special pleading to get to the point where god can actually do anything.

I don’t know why anyone would assume a controlling force from outside our section of reality would just be “a mind”, even if that concept made any sense. If we’re in a simulation, for example, objects outside our simulation are effectively non-physical to us. They have no physical status within the simulation. They don’t need one, because they can affect the simulation directly using their physical status in their own section of reality via the computer (or whatever generates the simulation).

But of course, the cry is, “Those things aren’t gods!” This is a No True Scotsman of sorts, and kind of a pointless observation because these things could still potentially have full control over us and our environment. It’s just that they don’t provide instant answers to difficult existential/moral questions; instead raising more, and so aren’t convenient. So any scenario where anything outside our environment has any qualities at all we would actually associate with “existing” must be removed from consideration. This leaves us, paradoxically, with a supposedly existent non-existent entity.

[robvalue]

Of course, I’m not saying we’re in a simulation. I’m saying that it’s one possibility, among many others, that get discounted seemingly because they don’t provide the correct answers.

Another reason theists may not like this line of thought is that it raises the question of whether we are real or not.

[Abaddon_ire]

This thread has drifted wildly from the OP.

"Hell" is entirelly imaginary place and now we are arguing number theory for reasons unexplained.

None of the godly protagonists can remotely point to any hell, so they are reduced to the distraction of "what does 4 mean".

Watching the flailing is sheer comedy.

Indeed. They’re trying to show that “non physical” things can exist. 

Amusingly, that same line of thought would lead one to accept unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, Santa, tooth gathering weirdos, witches, astrology, numerology, geomancy, druidism, dowsing, tarot, ouija, seances, psychics, voodoo, homeopathy, kundalini, and so forth. Anything, really.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And therein lies the rub...you do not differentiate between accidental and essential properties except when you want to justify some secular morality based on the recognition of a common humanity, i.e. an essential human nature. Sorry, Jor, you cannot have it both ways.

I don't see how that in any way follows from what I said and seems like nothing more than an off-topic snipe. You're simply talking out of your ass again.
And you still don't understand what I have said on the subject and so are attacking a straw man of your own making.
Feel free to answer any of the questions Roadie hasn't answered. Or crawl back in your hole as you're wont to do.

I didn’t mean it as a snipe. Sounds like another example of casual writing not conveying the tone that comes from non-verbal cues. Nevertheless, I could indeed be misinterpreting your position, hence your accusation of my setting up a straw man. Be that as it may, I try to understand each of your posts as part of your overall philosophy. I assume you are striving towards intellectual integrity and I try to treat you as a complex individual rather than just a series of unconnected posts.

I am responding directly to your admission of being a mereological nihilist, i.e. that only fundamental particles and their interactions have true ontological status and these cannot be meaningfully assembled into wholes having distinct properties. On its own this seems like a defensible position and in that way is similar to other defensible positions like idealism and epiphenomenalism. It shares with those positions the ability to stand on its own against nearly all objections but doesn’t seem to integrate well with other philosophical concerns. Nihilism in one area has a tendency to spread out and taint positive positions. The Continental tradition seems to have embraced and resigned itself to the inevitability of nihilism and considers the analytic tradition woefully blind in that regard. As do I.

As such, I do not see how the arguments you make here can be made to work with the moral philosophy you’ve expressed elsewhere. If only fundamental particles have ontological status then a composite entity, like a human beings, doesn’t truly have ontological status. And since there cannot be actual facts about things that do not truly exist, it follows that there cannot be moral facts about human beings. I do not consider it off-topic to discuss with another AF member the implications his or her positions on one thread have on others.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ontological subjectivity does not preclude epistemic objectivity. This is why nihilism poses no necessary threat to any objective moral system.

Think you might be confused, though...since jorg regularly expresses skepticism with regards to moral facts.

[SteveII]

Mercy and forgiveness are not essential attributes of God. They are expressions of Love. Justice and Holiness seem to be inviolable standards.

God can’t change his own standards?  That’s beside the point, anyway. What is perfect justice?  How does god decide what is just?

The point is that God does not decide what is just. His nature is perfect justice and all actions are governed by that characteristic. I have no idea what perfect justice is. All we can do is piece things together based on what we know God is like through what he has revealed in the Bible and through Jesus. 

It’s not so much an objection as a point. My point is that on the one hand, god’s message in life is absolutely, undeniably crystal clear, and yet on the other hand, there does seem to be some potential other, clearer mechanism he could use to reveal himself to us. My follow up question to this point is, why?  For what reason did god design levels of clarity? Why doesn’t he reveal himself in the clearest way possible to everyone on the planet right now?  What is his rationale?

Because a choice to choose God is a process that needs to have sincere roots.

Why?  Why does it need be a process?  What’s the reason?

There are verses that explain that God will prepare your heart for belief it you are receptive. Like I said before, it could be an experience, another person, circumstances in your life, etc. that get you to that point.  An advertisement in the sky would seem to undercut that part of the process/purpose.

You mean it would undercut the dramatic tension of the story, lol.  Look, if god’s ultimate goal and desire is to save as many souls as possible, then the only logical action for him to take is the one that would most efficiently and definitively secure that goal.  Obviously, that would be to show himself before the entire world right now; an action which he is perfectly capable of.  For god to take any action less straightforward than that would be in direct opposition of his expressed goal and desire. Creating some slow, lifelong test riddled with obstacles is about as logical as Dr. Evil locking Austin Powers in a fish tank, hidden behind a curtain, to be slowly killed by sharks with frickin’ laser beams. 

I heard a good example this week. For three years people followed Jesus around watching him do miracles. Thousands of people saw and even more heard. In 1 Cor 15:6, we hear that there were more than 500 people that actually saw him alive following his crucifixion. In Acts 2, there were only 120 that believed enough to be wait in Jerusalem as Jesus had told them to do. The point is that being shown miracles, signs, and even the ontological argument, does not get a person's heart to the right place to meet God. It is almost always a process. 

If we are uniquely designed for a physical existence, why is that physical existence finite? What is the reason for first, a finite existence, and then an infinite one? What logical reason is there for the construction of phases of life, and why such a disparity in their lengths? The whole thing reeks of a massive contrivance for the purposes of getting people to behave.

People have to be created. A certain amount of people will choose evil over good, themselves over God. Do you think that this earthly existence is not sufficient to choose God (some their whole lives)? Not to do many wonderful things for his glory? Not to live and experience a huge range of human experiences that shape who we are?

You didn’t answer a single one of my questions above.

A choice to choose God is necessarily finite because our entire universe is finite (and will die some day).  Our bodies break down and die. You seem to think that the relative brevity of life should have been longer. Why?

Oh, come on now, Steve.  Don’t be obtuse.  If our consciousness continues infinitely beyond our physical death, then our ability to make choices is obviously also infinite.  God is the one inserting arbitrary restrictions and ultimatums here. Why is that?

Can a disembodied soul make choices? There are no inputs or outputs. Seem to me the chance for reflection, change of heart, and a life with God have passed when you die. It seems your objection has no reasons other than to be difficult. 

Jesus' atonement is what wipes the slate clean. Are you saying the people should be forced to allow Jesus to take their place to pay for their sins? You would totally remove any sense of contrition, desire to stop, consequences, even awareness of our condition.  THAT does not make sense.

Why does god need Jesus to wipe our slate clean?  I notice you’re answering a lot of questions with questions.  I’m merely trying to get to the logical rationale behind these pillars of the Christian faith.

Forgiveness is not the same as atonement. I can forgive a murderer for killing my brother. I can't take away the consequences. Atonement takes away the consequences. It would be like Jesus literally sitting through the trial, taking on the humility of facing the victims, then prison and then the death penalty and the actual murderer going free. Obviously, forgiveness alone does nothing to satisfy the demand for justice.

[The Grand Nudger]

The point is that God does not decide what is just. 

Agreed.  That's why god is irrelevant to objective moral considerations.  

Forgiveness is not the same as atonement. I can forgive a murderer for killing my brother. I can't take away the consequences. Atonement takes away the consequences.

So much for responsibility and strong moral character. This is one part of what makes christianity an objectively immoral religion, further exacerbated by the nature of that removal of consequence.

I don't think you can really make a cogent comment on justice, after saying as much.

[LastPoet]

Page 69!

[LastPoet]

Oh, and

[LadyForCamus]

Ontological subjectivity does not preclude epistemic objectivity.

Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms (if possible) the definitions of these two terms and how they’re related to each other? I’d like follow this discussion and I’ve been trying to do research, but I’m not like, totally smert like you guys, and it’s going over my head. 😭. Thanks in advance for any scraps so generously thrown my way! 😁